Capitalism and human extinction
It was 2009, in Sumy Ukraine that Terry Hallman addressed the opening plenary of the international Economics for Ecology Conference. His presentation was on Economics in Transition
“This presentation will discuss the various forms of predominant economics thinking over the past century and put into context how we are where we are today. In that context, new economics thinking will be presented not merely as advancing economic theory, but as stark reality with life and death at stake for millions of people.”
He concluded with a warning:
“Possibly this has escaped immediate attention in Ukraine, but, economists in the US as of the end of 2008 openly confessed that they do not know what to do. So, we invented three trillion dollars, lent it to ourselves, and are trying to salvage a broken system so far by reestablishing the broken system with imaginary money.Now there are, honestly, no answers. It is all just guesswork, and not more than that. What is not guesswork is that the broken — again — capitalist system, be it traditional economics theories in the West or hybrid communism/capitalism in China, is sitting in a world where the existence of human beings is at grave risk, and it’s no longer alarmist to say so.
“The question at hand is what to do next, and how to do it. We all get to invent whatever new economics system that comes next, because we must.”
Following up in 2010, he began:
“Among three main areas of economics, the financial sphere remains dominant over social economics and environmental economics. The reason for this is very simple: in order for any system of economics to be sustainable over time, it must first be financially sustainable. If a system costs more than it produces, it requires infinite inputs over time. Infinite inputs are not available in a finite world, and we live in a finite world. If we pursue a system that costs more than it produces financially, it must and will necessarily collapse. But now, the financial system itself is broken: it costs far more than it produces.”
As a pioneer of business for social purpose, he’d been actively involved creating change with his work on a new economic system, where people and not profit ar the ‘bottom line’
Last year , writing of the Extinction Rebellion one of our local MEPs , Molly Scott-Cato wrote of why she’s turning from being a law-maker to a law breaker to save the planet:
“Over decades we have all operated in our different spheres of life — whether as journalists, academics, politicians, campaigners and educators — to ring the alarm about the way planetary life support systems are being destroyed. But a powerful alliance of wealthy individuals and multinational corporations, backed by complicit politicians, has subverted the political process and blocked action. This is why, whoever we are and whatever we do, we are coming together now to say we are prepared to engage in civil disobedience to force urgent climate action.”
It is no exaggeration to say that our survival as a species is at risk. Enough. Enough of words; of hypocrisy and broken promises. It’s time to act. “
In Ukraine, we’d been taking a stand against economic hit men, corrupt politicians and insanely greedy oligarchs, warning in 2005 of the risk of violent unrest:
“According to Mr. Aslund, who enjoys a respectable bully pulpit due to his job title, most of the ills in new Ukraine’s economy are directed related to Prime Minister Tymoshenko’s management. He states, as an article of faith but without any corroborating evidence to demonstrate cause and effect versus mere correlation, that “economic growth is screeching to a halt as a result.” Peppering his criticism are words like “populist”, “socialist”, and “state capitalism” — suggesting, again as articles of faith and nothing more, that these are necessarily bad things that can only contribute to economic problems. Increasing pensions and salaries, to move workers and retirees a little further out of poverty-level income, were condemned as budget busters that Ukraine’s new government cannot afford — despite the fact that not doing so essentially guarantees perpetuation of graft and corruption. Elimination of graft and corruption, and raising the overall standard of living for ALL Ukrainians rather than a few insanely greedy oligarch clans, was the main underlying and implied reason for the Orange Revolution — at least from hundreds of people, activists and otherwise, I talked with on the ground during and after the Revolution. Further, as director for any sort of peace institute, Mr. Aslund is obliged to review the connection between poverty and peace. Peace does not and cannot exist for people in poverty, unless they are harshly suppressed by government or other forces. Poverty is a horrible existence and lifestyle, and is bound to breed violence, not peace.”
These oligarchs had a powerful friend in the shape the EU trade commissioner:
Ukraine got violence nevertheless and on the back of international loans came a Monsanto land grab.
As violence arrived on the streets of Kyiv in 2014, Maidan peace activists called on the EU for support with measures which included the ‘Marshall Plan’ I forwarded to local MEPs reminding them of earlier appeals.
“Support political reforms and economic development: When the new government is in place, support Ukraine financially to get on a path of sustainable economic revival. A kind of “Marshall Plan“, can bring long-term economic benefits to Ukraine and save it from otherwise imminent long-term default.”
The ‘Marshall Plan’ had argued for a strategy of long term sustaimability:
‘This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for “people-centered” economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority — as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine’s poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a “top-down” approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first — not secondarily, along the way or by the way. ‘
In her Guardian article, Molly Scott-Cato refers to her involvement with sustainable finance and the European Fund for Strategic Investment.
You may wonder, as I did, whether such funding could have been made available to tackle the problems of Ukraine. Perhaps it will, since the EU has determined to create its own plan for Ukraine with the same name.
“On 11 October 2017, the Centre for European Policy Studies organised a conference to present the idea of two former Lithuanian Ministers (Mr Andrius Kubilius and Mr Gediminas Kirkilas) to launch a European “Marshall” plan for Ukraine.”
Later this month the EU meets in Ukraine to discuss the way foward which will focus on the main challenges facing the Ukrainian economy. Among those present will be Ander Aslund, the target of Terry Hallman’s 2005 article on “really betraying a revolution”.
In a trailer fo her new book This Changes Everything” Naomi Klein describes another paper delivered by a geophisicist to The American Geophysical Union in 2012 The conclusion — we’re fucked unless we resist..
Environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups, increases dissipation within the coupled system over fast to intermediate scales and pushes for changes in the dominant culture that favor transition to a stable, sustainable attractor.
